v Ipswich Town (h) - 20/9/25

[bluebruce]

3 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Most of the suggestions are hypothetical as is mine and the last bit is reality.

Don't treat everything on here like we are in a court of law.

Which by the way is probably how the EFL will treat it.... result or replay, there'll be two choices only.

I was only treating it like you were someone attempting to make a coherent argument, which I assume most of us do when we post.

[London blue]

4 minutes ago, GHD said:

If the panel decision comes within the regulations I wouldn’t think there were grounds for litigation. Taking part in the competition means clubs accept the rules

Changes to points awarded for a result would fall outside of that, surely.

Sheffield United and Nottingham Forest are two that I can think of that have recently either threatened or started legal proceedings against leagues that will likely believe they were acting within their regulations.

[Tomphil2]

19 minutes ago, London blue said:

It'll be a full replay, it's abundantly clear that the EFL will want to protect themselves from backlash and/or litigation and declaring the 80 mins played null is the best way to do that.

I think playing the rest of the match is the most fair thing to do.

I also think declaring a win for Rovers but awarding only one point is just laughable.

No more laughable than the pure fantasy on here that the EFL would somehow consider ordering Ipswich on a 500 mile round trek to Blackburn to play 10-15 mins of 10v11.

[GHD]

3 minutes ago, London blue said:

Changes to points awarded for a result would fall outside of that, surely.

Sheffield United and Nottingham Forest are two that I can think of that have recently either threatened or started legal proceedings against leagues that will likely believe they were acting within their regulations.

I never mentioned points awarded

[RevidgeBlue]

13 minutes ago, London blue said:

It'll be a full replay, it's abundantly clear that the EFL will want to protect themselves from backlash and/or litigation and declaring the 80 mins played null is the best way to do that.

I think playing the rest of the match is the most fair thing to do.

I also think declaring a win for Rovers but awarding only one point is just laughable.

In devil's advocate mode, potentially they're opening themselves up for a lot more litigation from other teams by ordering a full replay and giving Ipswich a decent chance of winning 3 points than by replaying part of the game which probably wouldn't result in them getting any more than a point at  best or ordering the result stands.

[bboy]

1 minute ago, Tomphil2 said:

No more laughable than the pure fantasy on here that the EFL would somehow consider ordering Ipswich on a 500 mile round trek to Blackburn to play 10-15 mins of 10v11.

I think the game will be fully replayed.

 

 

However I don't get that argument. They'll be doing a 500 mile round trip for 90 minutes too. They have to do that trip again either way.

 

Only way to avoid it is give us the 3 points.

[London blue]

4 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

No more laughable than the pure fantasy on here that the EFL would somehow consider ordering Ipswich on a 500 mile round trek to Blackburn to play 10-15 mins of 10v11.

It's really not.

[London blue]

3 minutes ago, GHD said:

I never mentioned points awarded

Sure, but that was my point. 

The two possible outcomes as I see it are full replay or partial replay, with the former being far, far more likely.

Anything else would likely fall outside of regulations.

[RevidgeBlue]

3 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

No more laughable than the pure fantasy on here that the EFL would somehow consider ordering Ipswich on a 500 mile round trek to Blackburn to play 10-15 mins of 10v11.

It's the best way to .maintain the integrity of the Competition.

If Ipswich understandably decide its not worth the risk travelling 500 miles to play 15 mins from a goal down with 10 men then thats fair enough but it should be their choice.

It should be at our expense though as it's not their fault the game was called off.

[rigger]

The only people that have done anything wrong in this situation, are the Rovers management, who have done nothing about a known problem, hoping that it would never arise, well it has.

[Tomphil2]

7 minutes ago, London blue said:

It's really not.

Oh but it is because just like my 'crazy' scenario it isn't going to happen, ever.

[London blue]

Just now, Tomphil2 said:

Oh but it is because just like my 'crazy' scenario it isn't going to happen, ever.

I would argue that it's multiple orders of magnitude more likely that the EFL order the rest of the match be played than declare Rovers to be the winners but only award one point. 

[RevidgeBlue]

7 minutes ago, rigger said:

The only people that have done anything wrong in this situation, are the Rovers management, who have done nothing about a known problem, hoping that it would never arise, well it has.

Twice now.

[Tomphil2]

3 minutes ago, London blue said:

I would argue that it's multiple orders of magnitude more likely that the EFL order the rest of the match be played than declare Rovers to be the winners but only award one point. 

Can you point to an example this is based on, are there any ?

It's black and white to them so everyone needs to stop kidding themselves.

Result or replay and a show of hands.

[M_B]

51 pages has to be the record for a match thread. 

[London blue]

5 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Can you point to an example this is based on, are there any ?

It's black and white to them so everyone needs to stop kidding themselves.

Result or replay and a show of hands.

Nope, but in declaring a partially played game to be a result and changing the number of points awarded for that result, the league would set two incredibly dangerous precedents.

Ordering the rest of the game to be played would, I believe, be adhering to as many of their own regulations as possible...

Apart from replaying the game entirely, which I've already stated I think will happen.

Just of all the the possible outcomes, your suggestion is the most unlikely of all those that I've read.

[SIMON GARNERS 194]

From the Dingles Website,it made me smile from a bunch of fuckwits...

Edited 47 minutes ago by SIMON GARNERS 194

[RevidgeBlue]

12 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Result or replay and a show of hands.

Id have thought the only 2 options being considered would be full replay or part replay.

[Upside Down]

14 minutes ago, SIMON GARNERS 194 said:

From the Dingles Website,it made me smile....

Showing how thick they are as per usual.

As if venkys would try to bring in fans.

[Theaxe15]

20 minutes ago, M_B said:

51 pages has to be the record for a match thread. 

51 pages and still no signings. What a joke..

[Tomphil2]

17 minutes ago, London blue said:

 

Just of all the the possible outcomes, your suggestion is the most unlikely of all those that I've read.

Sometimes there is a need to be radical 🙂

[chaddyrovers]

Great to see Ismael coming out and saying that he never agreed with the referee decision and that point of his report is wrong. So why did the ref say he did? Why has lied in his report? 

It was all McKenna and Ipswich were wanting the game calling out for these reasons, they were losing, down to 10 men and Rovers were controlling that game. Nothing in his team favour. 

[bluebruce]

6 minutes ago, Tomphil2 said:

Sometimes there is a need to be radical 🙂

And do something far more ridiculous and illogical than just finishing the game?

I don't know why you're persisting with this one beyond sheer bloody mindedness or trolling. I don't wish to be rude  but it has been thoroughly deconstructed as a very bad suggestion. I've no issue with you as a poster but hardly anything you've said on this matter makes sense.

Edited 42 minutes ago by bluebruce

[Tomphil2]

10 minutes ago, bluebruce said:

And do something far more ridiculous and illogical than just finishing the game?

I don't know why you're persisting with this one beyond sheer bloody mindedness or trolling. I don't wish to be rude  but it has been thoroughly deconstructed as a very bad suggestion. I've no issue with you as a poster but hardly anything you've said on this matter makes sense.

Yes M'lord.

[DE.]

41 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Great to see Ismael coming out and saying that he never agreed with the referee decision and that point of his report is wrong. So why did the ref say he did? Why has lied in his report? 

It was all McKenna and Ipswich were wanting the game calling out for these reasons, they were losing, down to 10 men and Rovers were controlling that game. Nothing in his team favour. 

If it is the case that Ismael did not agree to the match being abandoned, then I owe you an apology for my comments in that regard after the game. It'll be interesting to see if the EFL respond to that, because their statement was pretty clear in saying all parties agreed to the abandonment.